> Fixes two trivial indices errors.
No.
You're doing two much in a single patch. While both happen to be bug in the
save/restore code involving arrays, these are not two instances of the same
bug. The justification for each change is completely different.
Even if each change was obviously correct, I believe putting them together
into a single commit makes the result non-trivial. The fact your patch
introduces a bug strongly suggests it shouldn't have been considered trivial
to start with.
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void cpu_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)> if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_VFP)) {> - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {> + for (i = 16; i < 32; i++) {> CPU_DoubleU u;> u.d = env->vfp.regs[i];
I'm pretty sure this is wrong.
Paul

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> Fixes two trivial indices errors.>> No.>> You're doing two much in a single patch. While both happen to be bug in the> save/restore code involving arrays, these are not two instances of the same> bug. The justification for each change is completely different.
Sure. So should i resubmit it as 2 patches ?
>> Even if each change was obviously correct, I believe putting them together> into a single commit makes the result non-trivial. The fact your patch> introduces a bug strongly suggests it shouldn't have been considered trivial> to start with.>>> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void cpu_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)>> if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_VFP)) {>> - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {>> + for (i = 16; i < 32; i++) {>> CPU_DoubleU u;>> u.d = env->vfp.regs[i];>> I'm pretty sure this is wrong.>> Paul>
Oops, don't know how it got here lol. Bug is in cpu_load not in
cpu_save, of course.